Mulcair sows confusion over NDP’s promised corporate tax hike

Tom Mulcair is having a little trouble with numbers even as he attempts to reassure the business community that New Democrats would be prudent managers of the public purse.

The NDP leader told a Bay Street audience Tuesday that his child care plan “over the next 10 years will deliver one million, $15-a-day child care spaces across Canada.”

In fact, the NDP plan is to be rolled out over eight years.

An aide said the 10-year reference was a “speechwriter error.”

Then on Wednesday, Mulcair told CBC Radio’s “The Current” that the existing corporate tax rate is “about 12, 13 (per cent), something like that right now.”

In fact, the corporate tax rate, which Mulcair has vowed to raise by an unspecified amount, is 15 per cent.

Mulcair said later that he was referring to the difference between the combined federal-state corporate tax rate in the United States and the combined federal-provincial tax rate in Canada.

The combined U.S. rate is 39 per cent, almost 13 percentage points higher than Canada’s combined rate of 26.3 per cent.

Mulcair said he takes “responsibility for my lack of clarity” but then went on to muddy the corporate tax waters once again.

“We’ve always said one thing,” he said outside the NDP’s weekly caucus meeting. “We want to make sure that the Canadian tax rate for our large corporations remains below the U.S. combined rate and we’re going to continue to work on that.”

He added: “It’ll be done incrementally. We’ll stay below the U.S. average.”

But, in fact, Mulcair has not always said that one thing.

Last September, Mulcair told Maclean’s magazine that Canada’s corporate tax rate has “dropped way below the OECD average, way below what the Americans are paying.

He said an NDP government would keep corporate taxes below the American rate and “we’ll also wind up below the OECD average. But we’re so far below both right now it doesn’t make any sense.”

In fact, Canada’s tax rate is already slightly above the average 26.0 per cent imposed by the 34 countries that belong to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Since that interview, Mulcair hasn’t mentioned the OECD and has talked instead about bringing Canada’s corporate tax rate more in line with the average of G7 industrialized countries.

“We’re way below the G7 average so those are our main trading partners, countries with economies similar to ours,” he told CTV’s Canada AM in January.

The average corporate tax rate for G7 countries is 29.9 per cent, 3.6 percentage points higher than Canada’s.

During his radio interview Wednesday, Mulcair said an NDP government would hike federal corporate taxes to “something in the 18 to 19 (per cent) range” – a three-to-four-point increase he said would bring Canada in line with the G7 average.

But a few hours later outside his party’s caucus meeting, he didn’t mention the G7 at all and talked only about staying below the U.S. rate, which is the highest among all the OECD and G7 countries.

Which tax bar Mulcair really intends to limbo under makes a huge difference, since he’s relying on the promised corporate tax hike to rake in much of the revenue he’ll need to pay for child care and other pricey promises.

Erin Weir, a labour economist running for the NDP in Saskatchewan, has estimated that each percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate would generate about $1.5 billion in revenue each year.

However, other economists have warned that the move wouldn’t bring in as much money as the NDP thinks because corporations would simply shift income to other countries to avoid paying the extra taxes.

In the Commons on Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper needled Mulcair about his apparent confusion about corporate taxes.

“When asked, ‘What is the tax rate exactly?’, he did not know and stated it was three points lower than it actually is,” Harper said in a raucous question period that featured repeated pointed jabs at Mulcair, the current darling of public opinion polls.

“That is typical of the NDP. It does not know what the taxes are; it just knows everybody’s taxes have to be higher.”

Touche! Pat!
It boggles the mind that he is being allowed to be so sarcastic and recklessly boastful.
Either he’s not getting very sage advice from his team or he’s just not listening.
That team of advisors should be working night and day with him and really giving him first rate counsel.
Can any one of us even imagine the wild uproar had this been Trudeau making this flub???
My Lord, it would be the hot topic for At Issue and the press would be killing it.

This article has nothing to do with C-51, but you just can’t help yourself, can you? Every time I hear someone screaming about C-51, I think I’ll mention the NDP hypocrisy in voting against all the Liberal/Green amendments in committee while making political hay about a vote in the Commons. And that was back when Mulcair said he wanted to amend the bill (in ways very similar to the Liberals), before he flopped over to wanting to appeal it.

My impression is that the author of this article sounds pretty confused herself. Here is why:

(1) Assuming that they were talking about the federal tax rate, this article failed to define whether they were talking about that for big business (15%) or small business which is 11%; this may be picky to some but this article is trying to make the point that Mulcair does not know his numbers so it is only fair we hold the author to the same clarity, no?

(2) “Mulcair said later that he was referring to the difference between the combined federal-state corporate tax rate in the United States and the combined federal-provincial tax rate in Canada.

The combined U.S. rate is 39 per cent, almost 13 percentage points higher than Canada’s combined rate of 26.3 per cent.”

Now, I do not know if Mulcair was just trying to give an excuse for his mistake, but just taking the numbers as reported, isn’t the difference between “39” and “26.3” almost 13% (Mulcair had said 12-13%)? So, it is possible to give him the benefit of the doubt on this, no?

(3)”Since that interview, Mulcair hasn’t mentioned the OECD and has talked instead about bringing Canada’s corporate tax rate more in line with the average of G7 industrialized countries.”

So, what was wrong about Mulcair doing the above? The author herself pointed out that the G7 average is 3% higher than the combined Canadian rate (26%). Is it not possible that Mulcair stopped comparing to the OECD rate once he realized that it (OECD) was slightly higher than the combined Canadian rate?

(4) “During his radio interview Wednesday, Mulcair said an NDP government would hike federal corporate taxes to “something in the 18 to 19 (per cent) range” – a three-to-four-point increase he said would bring Canada in line with the G7 average.”

So Mulcair would hike the current rate by 3-4% (from 15% to 18-19%). Add 3-4% to the current 15% and we get the 18-19% range. Nothing wrong so far. Then add this increase of 3-4% to the current combined rate of about 26% and we get 29-30%, which would bring Canada in line with the G7 average. So where exactly did Mulcair go wrong on this ???? Either the author has failed to communicate her angst or I must have missed her point.

I do agree, however, that which bar Mulcair wants to limbo under would make a difference. I am also all for holding his feet to the fire, especially now that it seems he may be our next PM. But if the author wants to be critical about Mulcair’s lack of clarity, I would suggest she hold herself somewhat to the same standards. As I often tell my students: ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer. :)

From my own experience, there are some students who simply won’t be taught. They think they know it all and don’t apply the same kind of critical thinking in situation A as they do in situation B. They carry their biases quite happily throughout their lives. Kinda makes one doubt evolution, actually…

Mulcair..is going to end up being an embarrassment to the NDP.. I feel for them as they are pinning all their hopes on him to win the next election.. Just seeing Harper and Mulcair sparing in QP today..they both seemed to be in element as they shouted barbs back and forth at each other… These two men are cut from the same cloth….and from different parties..before settling on one. Before Mulcair joined the NDP, he was a Provincial Liberal for 12 years and resigned when he found out he was going to be demoted by then Liberal leader Jean Charest. He joined the NDP I believe in 2008 and now according to him is a Tommy Douglas NDPer..

Flexibility may be good for some..Like Harper…but it didn’t work for Bob Rae. We will have to wait and see how Mulcair fares in the run up to the election, if it works for him. Everyone is predicting Mulcair will clobber the other leaders in the debates, I am not convinced of that and think Mulcair’s debating skills are over rated and rhetoric over heated..

How many jobs, at 44, has Trudeau had? How long did each of them last? That’s why he needs paid consultants to advise him on every speck of policy – including Asselin, to get the “independent Senators” strategy. Knows diddly squat, and you think that, too, should be excused because he lacks years of experience under his belt. Yes! That’s precisely the point! He may come up with a good platform – remains to be seen – and have a good team, when you take away people who joke about domestic abuse, kettle protesters, or take $70k of taxpayers’ money to move across town, but Trudeau himself is a VERY weak candidate. In no other country without a monarchy would someone such as him expect to slide into power.

In the late 1940’s up to 1960 the Federal Rate of Corporate taxation was 41%. Today, it’s 15%. How did this happen? Read Linda McQuaigs 1987 book,” Behind Closed Doors – How the Rich Won Control of Canada’s Tax System …And Ended Up Richer” Viking Press http://www.umanitoba.ca/cm/cmarchive/vol16no4/revbehindcloseddoors.html
Does Canada have room to increase corporate taxation?

No Liberal cheerleaders weighed in on the article about the Central Nova, NS veteran Liberal candidate stepping down because of Trudeau’s stance on C-51.This was the star candidate widely thought to be the one to take down Peter MacKay, had he not later announced his resignation. But from the Lib supporters on this board, on this very important issue, not a peep. And yet, here they all are!

After writing such lovely BS hypocrisy about playing nice, and wanting a better world, we get….this.

I guess it wasn’t such a big deal because it is old news and he still supports the Liberal party. The only thing that came out recently is the letter stating the reason he stepped aside..it was personal he said because he could not vote for Bill C-51 after reading the whole thing… It was an honorable position he took, not the political one and as a Veteran would not compromise his integrity.

The news only came out in the past few days – WHY he declined the nomination.
Not a single Lib lover weighed in on that article, but hey, presto, like bats out of hell, weren’t they quick to glom on to this one and continue the disparagement of Mulcair.

BTW, RJ, you seem to be characterizing yourself as a betwixt and betweener, but I haven’t seen you say anything against Trudeau as of late. Are you sure the self-concept is accurate?

It’s hardly banner news that some Liberals are against C-51, including some candidates and sitting MPs. I know it’s hard to imagine people who don’t see the world in stark black and white and are able to appreciate two sides of an issue without screaming at each other, but ambivalence is not actually a crime. It’s like you rabid NDPers turn off your hearing aids every time Liberals say they will amend C-51.

Ambivalence is not the issue, nor are dichotomies. That the thing would have passed anyway isn’t the issue.

Principles are.

Your boy didn’t have the balls to stand up for his own father’s Charter. There is no nuance to be found in that. Only apologists who want him to win at all costs accept that colossal violation of Canadians’ rights.

And WHY did you violate Canadians’ rights, in his own words? Fear of the Harperites making hay out of his position and being able to call him “soft on terror”. Trudeau himself said things might be different were an election not around the corner. And he whipped the vote.

Sorry, Pat the Defender, that is way beyond the pale. That is crass self-interest. Personal and party advancement over the rights of Canadians. And arrogance, too, to think they will get into government and then change it. That was the game-changer for many people. He will never do as well now as he might have done otherwise.

So much was revealed by that one, very bad, decision. And it doesn’t bode well for his leadership.

That and the many other shortcomings. Trudeau wants us all to vote for him and give him 10 years or so until he can grow into the job – if he ever could. Hell, just in the past week, he’s come out with impulsive BS decisions twice. No maturity in judgement at all. And this is him in job interview mode – what will he do when he actually has power?

I care and I care about your lies about JT’s campaign promises issued lately. Calling them BS is pretty damn immature and sound like you are worried that your latest hero old angry Tom is starting to get the attention Trudeau has been under for two years. lets see how he weathers it and whether he can get tax rates right or understand that he has no power to abolish the senate.

Any NDPer is rabid to you guys these days because they are leading in the polls. Don’t be scared they won’t bite your heads off. They may tax the corporations and the rich more though and they may fix healthcare and give us back mail delivery and and and .. And they may pull us out of all those stupid invasions we are in and get rid of some of those questionable leaders in the military that think it is o.k. to sexually harass because it is biological. AND they may go after those tax dodgers that the Liberals and these toxic Tories aren’t even looking at. And by the way I like Justin Trudeau and might even have voted for him but C-51 scares the hell out of me for myself and my children and future grandchildren. Who would have thought we would be living in a police state…..who?

Nope..not a fence sitter, if that is what you mean. Neither am I a one issue voter. I am against Bill C-51 and wish Trudeau had voted against it… but understand his reasoning for doing so… I also believe he will amend it and make it a solid bill that will protect our rights and freedoms should he form government. I am still waiting to hear what Mulcair will do with the bill.. amend or repeal…

I think I mentioned that my MP is Liberal and has been for the last 3 elections…He is a stellar person, works with his constituents, and when he is not available there is always someone in the office to handle concerns of those who have them. I will vote for him again, because he does such a good job. Full disclosure I don’t know the NDP candidate in the riding, sure he or she is a good person, but that wouldn’t change my mind. Some of my family and friends support the NDP, and we can have some lively debates.. and laughs at how irritated politics, like religion make a lot of people. But that is the nature of politics, always has been, always will be.

But my MP is not the only reason I will vote Liberal this time. I think Trudeau, has got it right.. Many Canadians are fed up with the political games while the needs of Canadians are ignored. And so far Trudeau has rolled out policies and ways to strengthen our democracy should he form government, that are a game changer for our country. That is my opinion. You can ridicule all you want, calling people hypocrites and other derogatory names, it happens to be what I, or they feel. What on earth is wrong with supporting a party because you aline with their core values and beliefs?

That’s my rant. As I have said before, while I don’t agree with some of what you post, resorting to name calling of others who post just takes away from what is being discussed.

Aw, you think calling hypocrites hypocrites is out of line?
You think that’s name calling?
Look at the posts of some of the people you “like”.
In fact, look at some of your own posts of late for some ridicule.

It sure was old news rj.
It’s sad that we are being railed at for not yelling about Trudeau!
And as for those who rant about how sanctimoniously they have ‘defended’ Trudeau…well, Trudeau does not need Mulcair’s devotees defending him. It all is so puerile and serves no good at all.
And simply because many of us have made our dislike of Mulcair in an open honest way, we are being slammed like idiots.
How this conversation became so personally nasty is somewhat concerning but we just have to rise above it.
It’s been pretty shocking and unsettling to see things get so nasty and snide, but I have to believe it will abate and we can return to a more civilized dialogue. That’s what we teach our kids, and that’s the only way any good cohesive society can work together.
The snarky barbs and the name calling and insults really are unworthy of iPolitics and it’s amazing thoughtful pages.
There are all kinds of people we simply do not warm to in Life and Mulcair happens to be one, along with Clement, Kenney, MacKay, Ambrose, and a slew of others. That’s Life.
On the other hand, there are many in MUlcair’s caucus I admire tremendously and feel very sad that they have been so sidelined…Dewar, Harris, Boivin and others who have so much to offer.

Old news that came out this week and none of you bothered to comment upon. Instead, you were here, as usual, ripping Mulcair to shreds, and feigning the Southern belle routine once more.

Dashie, you don’t even have the guts to post to me personally, you snidely comment using others as a springboard. All the adjectives you use in this post are in fact name-calling – sanctimonious, puerile, nasty, snide, snarky. You are a startling hypocrite and your over the top, bitchy criticisms of Mulcair are what prompted the feedback you are now getting. Dear me, bring out the smelling salts, someone called Dashie on her crap.

You also have a very bad habit of speaking on behalf of everyone else – e.g., “There are all kinds of people we simply do not warm to in Life and Mulcair happens to be one”. Who’s we? The other personality resident in your brain?

Mulcair has started ripping himself to shreds. Harper made mince meat out of him today by simply making fun of old angry Tom. He could not answer the question Harper poised about the $3.7MM he stole from Canadians. Tom was simply pandering to get his 30 second shots recorded for later

Much ado about nothing. The toxic Tories and the Liberals are desperately afraid of Mulcair. They cannot believe that Alberta went NDP. They cannot believe that ‘the people’ are sick of the same old same old and are going to give the NDP a chance at the Federal level. They cannot believe it. The people are doing it because the government has never been so corrupt or mean spirited or so full of distain. Thank you Jack Layton and thank you Alberta because if it wasn’t for you Canada would be lost. We don’t want the oil companies destroying us. They want it all and we don’t want them to have it all.

Well, Nellie, couldn’t disagree more passionately with you here.
There are zillions of good people who are lifelong Liberals who are thrilled to see such a high calibre
fantastic woman like Notley leading Alberta. She’s a gem of a woman and leader. I only fear for the very nasty barrage of Republican style attacks she will surely suffer as she’s surrounded by the greedy Koch people who
literally have been running the province for decades.
So, it’s a myth and a destructive one at that, that Liberals are ‘desperately afraid’ of such a stellar person.
On the contrary as we are so damned happy to have great people of integrity and character leading this land.
Please can we ease up on the personal nastiness as it only lowers the bar.
Bob Rae said once a few years ago “Nastiness begets nastiness.” He’s so right!
Cheers!

I think you misread my remark. No personal nastiness that I can detect. It is not Notley that they are afraid of it is their ‘non’ corporate kowtowing that they are afraid of. $15.00 minimum wage, no more corporate donors to parties must be pretty frightening to them. Liberals campaign on the left the rule on the right and that has been proven again and again. Chretien did some good things but his finance Minister Paul Martin did a number on our healthcare that we have ‘never’ recovered from. The $2.00 per vote was great and the year paid leave for new parents was great but they still didn’t even come close to taxing the rich and chasing after tax avoiders with off shore accounts. So in essence (and especially because they voted for C-51) they are Conservatives ‘lite’ sorry to say.
Canada and Canadians need and most importantly ‘want’ change and that change is the NDP. It is their turn to lead and see where it takes us. You never know life might get better .

Hi Nellie I sure did not mean that YOU are nasty!! Bob Rae was making reference to the undeniable climate of nastiness Harper has created so thoroughly within Ottawa. That’s all I was thinking of and certainly did not mean to indicate otherwise. So, please forgive if I made you feel in any way slighted.
On a wee bit of a personal note, which I say with sincerity, this year has seen me coming out of a life threatening traumatic injury and indeed I have been blessed to the skies with
care that has been unimaginable and remarkable. We are so so fortunate in this land and we must fight to the end for our health care which I continue to believe is Harper’s one final wish to destroy. (That goes back to his days at the NCC)
The reason I mention this is because out of that darkness and forced quiet came deep reflection and evaluation of practically everything!
Politics and our society are perhaps the greatest passion for many of us.
They are territories that come with a rainbow of differences and voices and in my experience, we need to be tolerant of those broad differences and be open to learning from them.
For years I’ve had a little motto that I don’t mind being wrong (as long as no one is hurt)
as when I am generally I’m learning something new!
From this viewpoint, no good whatsoever can come of maligning others and from sheer
unkindness.
It is not unkind, nor is it intolerant to simply state one’s dislike or distrust for another human being.
Hell, I don’t like Michael Buble or Wayne Gretzy but that has everything to do with personal beliefs about what matters to me and that’s character.
Dylan is the greatest poet of my lifetime but that doesn’t diminish the classics and Keats and Yeats!
So, as we move towards the very important election we can expect tons of great debate, but I fail to see how hurling slurs at someone for their beliefs is constructive.
I respect your support for Mulcair but do not share it. Again, he simply doesn’t inspire trust
nor does he make me feel comfortable about the future of a country that is literally teetering.
If he were to be the PM of course I’d support his government, but I am so clearly a Liberal
and still believe deeply that Trudeau can win and I mean really win big time.
My entire life’s work has been predicated upon looking closely into others’ souls, truly
listening and most of being fair.
So, perhaps (and I’m hoping) this can put to bed any sense of unfair play or more
unkindness. We all only want a brighter much better future and it’s just around the corner,
as long as Harper is demolished.
Cheers!